Managing the student experience in English higher education: Differing responses to market pressures

This paper reports on recent research aimed at assessing how the management of the undergraduate student experience in English higher education is changing in the light of the new tuition fee regime introduced in 2012, as well as other government policies aimed at creating market-type pressures within the higher education sector. A distinction was observed between the research-intensive universities studied – defined here as institutions where research income comprised 20 per cent or more of total turnover, with correspondingly strong positions in published research-based rankings – and universities largely dependent on income from teaching, with weaker market positions. Broadly speaking, the latter group were responding to market pressures by centralizing services, standardizing procedures, and strengthening management controls over teaching processes. The research-intensive universities tended to work within existing institutional cultures to respond to students' needs. Organizational change here usually took the form of creating more coherent functional groupings of student services, rather than comprehensive reorganizations. It appears to us that these different responses to a changed environment point to the creation of two distinct English university types, one strongly managerial with 'student as customer' orientations, and a smaller group with less centralized, more collegial cultures.

Because the idea of'the student as customer' features significantly in this research, we should consider the implications of this characterization. Staddon and Standish (2012)  Furthermore,ithasbeenobservedthatevidenceislackingastowhetherthereisanycausal relationshipbetweengoodstudentsatisfactionscores-suggestingsatisfied'customers'-and educational quality as assessed by measures such as student performance and learning gain (Gibbs,2012:14). The argument that student views have limited value is less persuasive when applied to supportservicesofvariouskinds.Generallyinourcasestudiesreportedonhere,servicessuch ascateringandaccommodationareoperatedonwhatmightbeconsideredtobestraightforward principlesofsupplyanddemand:studentsareindeedthecustomersoftheseservices.Other student-facing university services such as admissions, academic administration, student advice andsupport,andcareersguidance,whilenotoperatedoncommercialprinciplesintheusual senseofthetermareclearlyprovidingservicestostudent(andpotentialandformerstudent) users, if not exactly to customers in the strict sense.This is because, unlike with catering or student accommodation,thereisnotanalternative university registry towhich studentscan turnifdissatisfiedwiththeoneonoffer.Noraredirectpaymentsfromuserspracticablefor mostoftheseservices.Itmightbearguedherethatstudentviewsor'voice'shouldforman importantindicatoroftheeffectivenessoftheseservices(andtheyarecertainlywidelysought), butnotnecessarilythedecisiveone.
There have been other significant changes in the higher education landscape.The 2011 White Paper identified improving the student experiences as one of three challenges that thegovernment'sreformssoughttotackle(theotherswerefinancialsustainabilityandsocial mobility). It declared that 'institutions must deliver a better student experience; improving teaching,assessment,feedbackandpreparationfortheworldofwork' (BIS,2011:4).Inaddition, it indicated the government's wish further to increase competition by encouraging higher educationworkinfurthereducationcollegesandinprivateproviders,bothfor-profitandnonprofit,andalsobymakingiteasierforsmallerinstitutions,withoutsignificantresearchprofiles and with limited subject ranges, to gain a university title.These changes must have increased competitivepressuresforsomeinstitutions,althoughitishardtogaugebyhowmuch.Taken together,however,theyhaveformedahighereducationlandscapethatisfluidandunpredictable, withmajorchallengesforinstitutionalleadershipsandtheiracademicandprofessionalstaffs.
Academic staff in all our cases were being required to respond to increased student expectations, which had led to tensions in places.AtT1, for example, there were guarantees about the timescale for the return of written work. At R1, examples of good practice in otherdepartmentswerehighlightedtoencourageacademicstafftohelpimprovethestudent experience-'TheycangetbetterNSSscoresbychangingtheirpractice,whycan'tyou?'The institutionalcultureherewouldnot,itwasbelieved,supportamoredirigisteapproach-which inanycasewasconsideredunnecessary:thedynamicsofcollegialvolitionseemedtoworkwell. Betteracademic-managementrelationswerestressedatT2asawayofmakingacademicstaff moreawareofstudentexperienceissues,forexamplebyensuringthatthelibrarywasaware ofchangingcourserequirements.WhatisapparentinourXandTcasesisthatrespondents reported that students do not in general see the new fee levels simply as a development of thepreviousfeeregime,butasqualitativelydifferent,puttingtheminanewpositionvis-à-vis the university:'Every single thing comes back to the money question' (i.e., fee levels), said a Students'UnionofficeratT2.Thisconcernwithfeelevelsdidnotfeatureinsuchapronounced wayatR1andR2intermsofstudentrelationswithacademicandprofessionalstaff,although fee levels certainly appeared to be a concern to most students.A Students' Union officer at R2 had, however, detected a change in culture as a result of fee levels and marketization generally(althoughhepersonallybelievedthatitwasunhelpfulforstudentstoseethemselves ascustomerswithrights).
Inmanycases,reviewsofadministrativeserviceshadresultedingreatercentralizationof decision-making, which, it was sometimes argued, may not always be in the best interests of the students that the changes were designed to serve.AtT1, faculty staff complained that a standardfigureforclasscontacthourspermodulehadbeenimposedinresponsetostudent complaints, even though some modules (in the view of academic staff) required more hours, while others needed fewer.At X1, a wide-ranging centralization of professional services had recentlytakenplace,whichhadseverelyreducedprofessionalstaffnumbersinthefaculties.The enlarged,centralstudentsupportdepartmentnowhadsome350staff.Akeybenefitclaimedfor thiswasthemoreconsistentapplicationofpoliciesandprovisionofinformationtostudents,but atthepriceoflossofimmediatepersonalcontactanddetailedknowledgeoffacultybusiness: 'efficiencyatthepriceofeffectiveness'wasacommentbyafaculty-basedstaffmemberabouta similarmoveatT1.Thiscentralizationwasseenascausinganimportantculturalchange,which, somerespondentsbelieved,hadcreatedanewsenseofenthusiasm.Otherswerelesspositive aboutitseffects.SimilarchangeshadtakenplaceatR1,althoughhereallcentralserviceswere required to have a student experience'champion' and an action plan, the implementation of which was monitored, but not directed, by the head of student experience.There had been somecentralizationfromfacultylevelatR1,butmoreemphasiswasplacedondevelopingcrosscuttingthemes(e.g.studentcommunications)thatcouldbepursuedcollaborativelyindifferent servicedepartmentsacrossthe(verylarge)university.Asimilarapproach,basedonactionplans atdepartmentallevelratherthanwidespreadreorganization,wasbeingpursuedatR2.

The graduate experience
Studentemployabilitywasacentralconcerninuniversityplanning.Itwasoftenuppermostin the minds of applicants.A senior manager atT2 said that for many,'getting a good job was part of a good student experience'.A careers adviser atT1, however, considered that some studentsshowedalackofinterestinpreparingforwork,seeminglyonthegroundsthatthey had'boughttheirdegree'withtheirfees,andthatajobsomehowcameattached.AtR1,students were encouraged to think more broadly about'my future' rather than about employment as such,althoughachievingahighproportionofgraduatesworkinginprofessionaljobssoonafter graduation was an important performance indicator for the student experience directorate. SimilarlyatR2,theemphasisonstudentemploymentwasrelativelyrecent,andhadledtoan expanded careers service with employer-engagement and placement staff now attached to faculties.
ThehighfeesappeartohavechangedthewayinwhichmanystudentsinourXandTcases relatetotheuniversityservicesonoffer,withadefinitetrendtowardsmoreassertiveconsumer -ifnotalwayscustomer-attitudes;atleast,thisishowitappearstomanyofthestaffandto student representatives.This in turn has driven universities to make wide-ranging changes in order to at least maintain each university's competitive position -which seems to have had theeffectofreinforcingtheviewamongstudentsthattheyshouldindeedbetreatedaspaying customers,withtherightsthatgowiththatstatus.Wehaveonlylimiteddatahere,butwemay hypothesizeamutuallyreinforcingspiralofexpectations.
ThetrendtowardsadministrativecentralizationseenintheTandXcases,believedtobe necessaryinordertoprovideimprovedandconsistentlevelsofservicetostudents,cancreate difficultiesinlargeorganizationssuchasourcase-studyuniversities.T1'sremovalofdiscretion atfacultylevelovercontacthoursindifferentmodulesisanexampleofapolicyintroducedto dealwithstudentcomplaintsbutwhichmaynotbeinthebestinterestsofindividualstudents. Thedistancingofadministrativeprocessesfromday-to-dayacademicworkmaytendtocreate a'them and us' culture, with unfortunate implications for effective and harmonious working relationships. R1 has approached the matter rather differently, with some reorganization of services but probably with more emphasis on ensuring that all functional areas planned to provideanimprovedstudentexperience.
Although the new fee regime has not led to competition on price between universities as the government had once hoped, senior staff in all our case-study universities were in no doubtthattheoverallhighereducationenvironmenthadbecomemorecompetitiveinrecent years, though for different reasons in ourT and X cases compared with the R cases.All the universities were accordingly making efforts to distinguish themselves, to stand out from the crowd.The emphasis that we found everywhere on NSS results, internal satisfaction surveys, league table positions, and marketing activity is a reflection of this. Intense involvement with socialmedia,invariousways,isanothersymptomofthisneedforprominencein(particularly) thecommunicationchannelsfavouredbyyoungpeople.Subsequentmanagementactionsplace furtherpressureonprofessionalandacademicstaff,asnotedabove.Inparticular,academicstaff turnoverinsomeofourcase-studyuniversitieshadincreasedsignificantlyasaresult.Itseemed tousthatthereisarealdangerofdisaffectionamongacademicstaffinourTandXuniversities becomingendemic;therearenowrivalversionsofhowuniversitiesandtheirstaffshouldstand inrelationtostudents.